Dataset Information

Efficacy and Time Sensitivity of Amniotic Membrane treatment in Patients with Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) are complex chronic wounds which have a major long-term impact on the morbidity, mortality and quality of patients. The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and time sensitivity of human amnion/chorion membrane treatment in patients with chronic DFUs.

Methods

The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase and Web of Science databases were systematically searched to identify relevant articles up to 10 April 2017. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing human amnion/chorion membrane + standard therapy and standard therapy alone in patients with DFUs were included in the analysis. Eligible studies were reviewed and data extracted into standard form. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing the risk of bias was used. Review manager version 5.3 software was used for statistical analysis. Data were analyzed using a random effect model.

Results

Overall, the initial search of the four databases identified 352 published studies; of these, seven RCTS were ultimately included in the meta-analysis. The overall test effect in the group assessed at 4 weeks was Z = 4.14 [P < 0.0001; odds ratio (OR) 0.05; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01-0.21]. The overall test effect in the group assessed at 6 weeks was Z = 4.28 (P < 0.0001; OR 0.07; 95% CI 0.02-0.23). The overall effect in the group assessed at 12 weeks was Z = 4.96 (P < 0.00001; OR 0.10; 95% CI 0.04-0.24. The results showed that patients receiving amniotic membrane + standard therapy had far fewer incomplete healing wounds than those receiving standard of care alone. Assessment of the wound healing state at 4 and 6 weeks revealed that the wound healing state was almost the same, but there was a net difference of wound healing state at 12 weeks.

Conclusion

Human amnion/chorion membrane + standard of care treatment heals DFUs significantly faster than standard of care alone. When using the amnion in patients with DFUs, the optimal times to assess progress in wound healing should be 4 and 12 weeks.

SUBMITTER: Laurent I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5630554 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDiabetic foot ulcers are a major complication of diabetes mellitus (DM), when heparin and heparin related substances may be potentially used as an adjuvant treatment. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of heparin and heparin related substances for the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers.MethodsWe searched up to March 2021 in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; EBSCO CINAHL; VIP Chinese Science and Technique Journals Database; China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) Database and Wan Fang Database investigating heparin or heparin-related substances in patients with diabetic foot ulcers. The primary outcomes included proportion of ulcers completely healed and time to complete ulcer healing. We assessed each included study with the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool and used the GRADE approach to assess the overall quality of the evidence.ResultsWe included nine randomized studies involving 620 participants in the meta-analysis, involving two different heparin and heparin-related substances, low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and hyaluronic acid. Our study did not show the benefits from LMWH on increasing chance of the ulcer healing (RR: 1.26; 95% CI: 0.78 to 2.04; P=0.35; very low) or shortening the time to complete ulcer healing (SMD: 0.13 d; 95% CI: -0.29 to 0.56; P=0.54; very low). Hyaluronic acid may improve the complete ulcer healing (RR: 1.57; 95% CI: 1.29 to 1.91; P˂0.00001; very low) and shorten the time to complete ulcer healing (SMD -0.84, 95% CI -1.15 to -0.53; P<0.00001; low). Hyaluronic acid and LMWH were generally well tolerated for treating diabetic foot ulcers in this review.ConclusionHyaluronic acid may improve diabetic foot ulcer with very low quality evidence but not LMWH. However, the benefits and harms need further validation in larger trials with different population.Systematic review registration[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/], identifier [PROSPERO, CRD42021269212].